A. WHETHER COURT'S DISREGARD OF PETITIONER'S ASSERTION A BRADY CLAIM, SPECIFICALLY PER SE CONFLICT WHERE PROSECUTOR AS CURRENTLY IS A STATE PROSECUTOR VIOLATES SIXTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEE TO REASONABLE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, IS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT AN AUTOMATIC REVERSAL OF PRETRIAL RULING AS ESTABLISHED AT ORAL ARGUMENT?

B. WHETHER PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE + STATE COURTS VIOLATE PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AS TRIED BY PROBABLE CAUSE WAS BROUGHT HAD BEEN OVERTURNED BECAUSE ALLEGATIONS FILED BY FAMILY MEMBER REGARDING SEXUAL CONDUCT WERE BROUGHT UNDER CITIZENS PENAL PURSUANT 732-64, SIS ER), THIS ECL, SUFFICIENT FOR HIPP TO EXPEL CONSTITUTIONAL BE THETA S AWE (98 PROCEDURAL BAR BEOST BB ETL TENS OF AIS PERIW 2 SEES EU TTANR?

C. WHETHER DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF AN ABUSE OF PROCESS, ABUSE OF POWER, OR AN ABUSE OF DECREE TO BE WARRANTED AGAINST CERTAIN COURT'S DISREGARD OF BUSINESS SUPREME COURT'S ORDER [AT CUA EA] LENE OWTAS EAR UEELE TO KCK CAUVRT LECROS AS ALSO PRESENTED DEFIE(ENT PT OXH. MAL LED?

D. WHETHER THIS HONORABLE MIGHT EVER ENSURE TO PROMPT TO REVIEW INSTANT PETITION SINCE CAUSE & FESO BR EMTHL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE FOR PETITIONER?

Whether the Court's denial of petitioner's assertion of a Brady claim, specifically per se conflict, violates the Sixth Amendment guarantee to reasonable assistance of counsel, sufficient to warrant an automatic reversal of prejudice as established at Strickland v. Washington?